In its online article headlined Conflicts handcuff taxpayers posted  May 25, 2014, the Coeur d’Alene Press made a big fuss about the costs incurred by Kootenai County which hired private conflict attorneys to represent indigent clients after its own Public Defender’s Office attorneys had declared conflicts.

It occurs to OpenCdA that the Press ought to make a similar and perhaps even more exhaustive examination of the use of conflict attorneys by the Kootenai County Prosecuting Attorney.   In most instances those conflict attorneys will come from the prosecuting attorney’s office in another county. For example, Kootenai County may refer cases to Bonner or Nez Perce Counties for charging decisions and prosecution.

We’d suggest reporting but not focusing exclusively on any additional costs incurred by Kootenai County with such referrals.  Rather, we’d suggest looking at the reasons the Kootenai County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office was unwilling or unable to conduct the statutorily prescribed functions for which the office was created and the Prosecuting Attorney elected.

Being elected officials, prosecutors are sometimes tempted to cherry-pick the cases they choose to prosecute in order to enhance their conviction record during the next campaign.  Having a you-scratch-my-back-I’ll-scratch-yours relationship with prosecutors in other counties benefits both prosecutors since the voters from County X don’t get to vote for or against the prosecutor from County Y or County Z.  And too, if County X’s prosecutor has valid ethical conflicts, then the voters from County X need to know that.  Too many hand-offs to other county attorneys may suggest to voters that County X’s Prosecutor might be better suited for private practice rather than public service.

It’s just a thought.